Minnesota woman hit with $1.9 million RIAA lawsuit judgment

[jcow79]

This is really more about the RIAA making a point than recouping any real losses. As they watch CD sales all but dry up they realize their market is going to be the online market and it's imperative that they make it clear to consumers that you are STILL expected to pay for music that you download. People draw WAY too many analogies to radio content that just aren't congruent to downloading music. If you want free music on the internet that is what internet radio is for. The artists and music industry get their cut from the broadcasters. But if you want to download your favorite songs on demand and without commercial interruption, you need to pay for it. The RIAA can't just stand idly by and let the internet carry away all their profits.

The music industry will make an example of her...a head on a pike if you will, and show everyone that not only do THEY take illegal downloading seriously but so do the courts. I think this has been more of an exercise to demonstrate to the world just what the penalties can be...especially if you make a nuisance of yourself in your defense. When it’s all said and done I believe the industry will drop the penalties, give her a slap on the wrist and try to appeal to music fans as not being as callous as they’ve been portrayed….but still mean business.

[Dark Hellion]

And when a king put too many heads on a pike someone would usually return the favor.

You do not make points with excessive repercussions, all you make are enemies. Fuck, the RIAA is making enemies of the musicians, their sole reason for existence. The pretense that this is all some clever maneuvering would make sense if the maneuvering was in any way clever and not more akin the the maneuvering of a cartel protecting its assets.

[Sriad]

This is really more about the RIAA making a point than recouping any real losses. As they watch CD sales all but dry up they realize their market is going to be the online market and it's imperative that they make it clear to consumers that you are STILL expected to pay for music that you download. People draw WAY too many analogies to radio content that just aren't congruent to downloading music. If you want free music on the internet that is what internet radio is for. The artists and music industry get their cut from the broadcasters.

Don't you mean the music industry gets their cut, then pisses in the artist's faces and tells them it's rain?

But if you want to download your favorite songs on demand and without commercial interruption, you need to pay for it. The RIAA can't just stand idly by and let the internet carry away all their profits.

The music industry will make an example of her...a head on a pike if you will, and show everyone that not only do THEY take illegal downloading seriously but so do the courts. I think this has been more of an exercise to demonstrate to the world just what the penalties can be...especially if you make a nuisance of yourself in your defense. When it’s all said and done I believe the industry will drop the penalties, give her a slap on the wrist and try to appeal to music fans as not being as callous as they’ve been portrayed….but still mean business.

You (and they) are missing the point.

This isn't a head on a pike (even though I'm sure SHE feels like it), it's pissing in the ocean. People who really want to pirate music will just use encrypted bit-torrent clients, or foreign proxies to rapidshare, or any of the many other nigh-impossible to punish methods available. Absurdly disproportionate punitive damages don't scare people, they just make the people already inclined to piracy see the RIAA more as "jackbooted thugs who don't deserve my money".

And you aren't addressing the piracy/stealing inequality. If you were to steal, say, food from me I wouldn't have that food anymore. If I download U2's latest album, that is 15.00 that I might or might not have spent, but there are exactly the same number of CDs for sale. Your side of this is arguing that they're the same thing, but first you should be establishing that it's NOT the same as making a mix tape for a friend or recording a TV show instead of buying the DVD.

[Eulogy]

The thing about information is no matter how many times you share it, you still have the same amount of it. If someone overhears you talking about a great deal at the supermarket, he gets your information, but you still remember it. You don't forget about the deal because someone obtained that information by accident.

Files are arranged bytes. Downloading a file simply rearranges the bytes into something that your computer can read. It is NOT stealing a candy bar; candy bars are physical objects. Just try downloading a candy bar.

[jcow79]

Don't you mean the music industry gets their cut, then pisses in the artist's faces and tells them it's rain?

That's a matter between the artists and the industry.

You (and they) are missing the point.

This isn't a head on a pike (even though I'm sure SHE feels like it), it's pissing in the ocean. People who really want to pirate music will just use encrypted bit-torrent clients, or foreign proxies to rapidshare, or any of the many other nigh-impossible to punish methods available. Absurdly disproportionate punitive damages don't scare people, they just make the people already inclined to piracy see the RIAA more as "jackbooted thugs who don't deserve my money".

Pirates are still going to pirate?? No shit. You have to take into consideration that a large proportion of music downloaders are computer novices. They are downloading music because software like Kazaa has made it extremely easy to do. But this case let's people think that downloading music ISN'T as anonymous as they thought and the industry CAN find them. For a lot of people this is incentive enough to stop pirating and switch to ITunes. And you also have to consider that prior to the recording industry making a stink about downloading, a lot of people weren't even sure that what they were doing was wrong. This case sends an undeniable message.

Now the tarnishing the RIAA is doing to their image is yet to be seen... Do they lose more money by appearing heavy handed and face boycott or more from not stemming the tide of casual internet downloading? I personally like the approach the movie industry has been using where they are actually making commercials and marketing the effects that piracy has on people. The RIAA has chosen high profile civil suits to do their marketing for them.

And you aren't addressing the piracy/stealing inequality. If you were to steal, say, food from me I wouldn't have that food anymore. If I download U2's latest album, that is 15.00 that I might or might not have spent, but there are exactly the same number of CDs for sale. Your side of this is arguing that they're the same thing, but first you should be establishing that it's NOT the same as making a mix tape for a friend or recording a TV show instead of buying the DVD.

I don't know why you presume to tell me what side I'm on when it comes to the theft vs copyright debate. I've only commented on the motivations of the industry to press these civil cases.
But I don't have to make this distinction anyway because the laws do it for me. Theft and copyright infringement are dealt with dramatically different.

[General Zod]

Pirates are still going to pirate?? No shit. You have to take into consideration that a large proportion of music downloaders are computer novices. They are downloading music because software like Kazaa has made it extremely easy to do. But this case let's people think that downloading music ISN'T as anonymous as they thought and the industry CAN find them. For a lot of people this is incentive enough to stop pirating and switch to ITunes. And you also have to consider that prior to the recording industry making a stink about downloading, a lot of people weren't even sure that what they were doing was wrong. This case sends an undeniable message.

Do you honestly think this is the first attempt the recording industry has made to make an example about piracy? Does nobody remember the Napster fiasco? Oh yeah, piracy didn't decrease after that.

Now the tarnishing the RIAA is doing to their image is yet to be seen... Do they lose more money by appearing heavy handed and face boycott or more from not stemming the tide of casual internet downloading? I personally like the approach the movie industry has been using where they are actually making commercials and marketing the effects that piracy has on people. The RIAA has chosen high profile civil suits to do their marketing for them.

There have been a number of studies done showing that piracy impacts music sales not one iota. The only studies I've seen that show it has a negative impact have all been sponsored by the media cartels.

[Vendetta]

And if I record it on an old boombox I'm stealing? Are you that stupid?

Home Taping is Killing Music.

Also, under the strictest interpretation of the law, if you play your music loud enough to be heard outside your own premises you can be considered to be unlawfully broadcasting that music, and thus up for copyright infringement. Though that is, so far, too wacky even for the RIAA to bother with.

[jcow79]

Do you honestly think this is the first attempt the recording industry has made to make an example about piracy? Does nobody remember the Napster fiasco? Oh yeah, piracy didn't decrease after that.

It's not their first attempt. But I do believe this is the highest penalty for a case like this. It's my belief that the industry has actually been kind of testing the waters with cases until they could smell blood and really sink their teeth into a case that had a weak defense and their lawyers could get a dramatic win. A lot of these other cases have been quietly dealt with.

There have been a number of studies done showing that piracy impacts music sales not one iota. The only studies I've seen that show it has a negative impact have all been sponsored by the media cartels.

SEE!! Piracy is making the industry spend money on studies proving that spending money on studies is caused by piracy!! Irrefutable proof! I jest.

But seriously, I'll have to look at some of those studies because even a casual googlefu indicates that music sales are in mass decline and piracy is typically sited at least as a contributing factor.

[General Zod]

It's not their first attempt. But I do believe this is the highest penalty for a case like this. It's my belief that the industry has actually been kind of testing the waters with cases until they could smell blood and really sink their teeth into a case that had a weak defense and their lawyers could get a dramatic win. A lot of these other cases have been quietly dealt with.

The fact that the rate of piracy has scarcely felt a ripple despite the sheer amount of lawsuits should be a clear sign to most people that these suits are nothing more than ineffective scare tactics. They've sued people who don't even own a PC, for fuck's sake.

But seriously, I'll have to look at some of those studies because even a casual googlefu indicates that music sales are in mass decline and piracy is typically sited at least as a contributing factor.

How many of these citations were from the media cartels and people associated with them?

[Ford Prefect]

That's some pretty good screening. They probably went looking for people who don't even use a personal computer at home.

From memory, America's justice system actually has something of a business in which jurors are selected based on pretty specific criteria. I'm not sure how true this actually is (it was only briefly mentioned in a first year lecture), but it strikes me as being tremendously fucked up.

[pj1351]

But seriously, I'll have to look at some of those studies because even a casual googlefu indicates that music sales are in mass decline and piracy is typically sited at least as a contributing factor.

How many of these citations were from the media cartels and people associated with them?

I remember a good few years back, as proof that the music industry really was losing 5 billion per year to piracy, they released some of their internal document. Unfortunately, on that occassion they weren't particularly careful in checking what they were releasing, and when people actually added up the numbers, it did actually show them losing approximately 5 billion per year on average...

... To STOCK SHRINKAGE, e.g. "theft by customer, theft by employees, poor invoicing, poor receiving and despatch procedures, poor record keeping and theft or mismanagement by suppliers staff".

Of course, the document showing those numbers was very quickly taken offline, and the correct document (i.e. properly manipulated and uninformative) were released.

[jcow79]

The fact that the rate of piracy has scarcely felt a ripple despite the sheer amount of lawsuits should be a clear sign to most people that these suits are nothing more than ineffective scare tactics. They've sued people who don't even own a PC, for fuck's sake.

Scare tactic? No doubt. Ineffective...perhaps. I really think the aim of the RIAA is not at deterring your mass pirates. These are computer savvy people to start with that know how to not get caught. I think they just want to nudge (or shove) the casual pirates into legitimate sales. You have to understand the sheer volume of average Joe at home casually downloading music because it's free and easy. Prior to his broadband connection he would pick up a CD here and there. Now he's downloading. I think the industry has incentive to convince Joe here to spend a buck a song rather than DL it for free.
There's no doubt the dynamic of the industry has changed. It's an even larger factor for the decline in sales. The internet has changed the entire market for media. But loss prevention is loss prevention and the industry feels compelled to do something about it. I think they're being dicks about it...but doing it within protections of the law.

How many of these citations were from the media cartels and people associated with them?

Very likely most of them. It looks like the biggest contributor is how people can download ONE song online rather than having to pay for entire albums. Again this is a dramatic change in the industry. But it doesn't mean the industry isn't going to stop trying to stem what THEY view as other losses.

[General Zod]

Scare tactic? No doubt. Ineffective...perhaps. I really think the aim of the RIAA is not at deterring your mass pirates. These are computer savvy people to start with that know how to not get caught. I think they just want to nudge (or shove) the casual pirates into legitimate sales. You have to understand the sheer volume of average Joe at home casually downloading music because it's free and easy. Prior to his broadband connection he would pick up a CD here and there. Now he's downloading. I think the industry has incentive to convince Joe here to spend a buck a song rather than DL it for free.

Lawsuits won't make people buy music. Realizing their model is hopelessly outmoded and broken and then changing it will.

There's no doubt the dynamic of the industry has changed. It's an even larger factor for the decline in sales. The internet has changed the entire market for media. But loss prevention is loss prevention and the industry feels compelled to do something about it. I think they're being dicks about it...but doing it within protections of the law.

It used to be the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Very likely most of them. It looks like the biggest contributor is how people can download ONE song online rather than having to pay for entire albums. Again this is a dramatic change in the industry. But it doesn't mean the industry isn't going to stop trying to stem what THEY view as other losses.

Turns out the RIAA and reality have different ideas as to what constitutes a loss. Shocking, I know.

[Sriad]

And you aren't addressing the piracy/stealing inequality. If you were to steal, say, food from me I wouldn't have that food anymore. If I download U2's latest album, that is 15.00 that I might or might not have spent, but there are exactly the same number of CDs for sale. Your side of this is arguing that they're the same thing, but first you should be establishing that it's NOT the same as making a mix tape for a friend or recording a TV show instead of buying the DVD.

I don't know why you presume to tell me what side I'm on when it comes to the theft vs copyright debate. I've only commented on the motivations of the industry to press these civil cases.
But I don't have to make this distinction anyway because the laws do it for me. Theft and copyright infringement are dealt with dramatically different.

And Bill O'Reilly is an Independant, right?

You'll need to excuse my glibness, but the jury is still out on what the laws do for you. The RIAA has won a relative handful of highly publicized CIVIL lawsuits against people who have been outspent ten to one, and browbeaten thousands of others into out of court settlement.

America's media corporations have a long history of trying to suppress consumer rewritable technology they feared would cut into profit. It happened with cassettes, VHS, CD-RW, and again now in the digital field. The difference reflected in these lawsuits is that non-annonymous file sharing allows the persecution of individuals in a way that would have been impossible with earlier "piracy" devices. In cases where people have had the resources to sustain appeals or strong initial defenses their success rate has been much lower.

A more meaningful metric of harm done by piracy than music sales alone would be the behavior of American spending on all discretionary entertainment media as a percentage of income over the last 15 years. Music companies have been losing market share to DVDs and video games... but it's really the pirate's fault.

[Patrick Degan]

Also, under the strictest interpretation of the law, if you play your music loud enough to be heard outside your own premises you can be considered to be unlawfully broadcasting that music, and thus up for copyright infringement. Though that is, so far, too wacky even for the RIAA to bother with.

—for NOW, that is.

[jcow79]

Lawsuits won't make people buy music. Realizing their model is hopelessly outmoded and broken and then changing it will.

This is where I think the RIAA really fucked up. They drug their feet when it came to moving their market online. But since it was going there with or without them it allowed this culture of piracy to prevail. People who under normal circumstances wouldn't spend the better part of their day infringing on IP rights found themselves downloading Gigs upon gigs of music simply because it was easy and not readily available online legally. It became so common practice that when it came to light that it's ILLEGAL, people were like "WTF?" Had the industry jumped on online sharing and even worked to facilitate the networks, i think the piracy culture wouldn't have been as prevalent.

It used to be the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I'm going to assume you mean the industries past attempts at crushing technology that pose risks to copying their material. ie VHS, TAPES, CD-R. The problem is they were attempting to stop the technologies because going after the people USING them to actually bootleg and pirate was near impossible. Despite their crazy antics...at least these latest cases are pointed at the actual culprits rather than blaming the technology for having 'potential' dubious uses. Surprisingly they were actually successful at going after Napster....So in effect doing the same thing actually paid off.

Turns out the RIAA and reality have different ideas as to what constitutes a loss. Shocking, I know.

Considering how quickly their market has changed and how much the profits have dropped I don't think all the data is in. No doubt with downloading being cheaper and easier than going to the store, CD sales were guaranteed to dry up. And with songs available individually it's no surprise that entire albums aren't being bought because you're more likely to just buy a few of your favorite songs from each album. A music downloader MAY NOT be someone who would have bought an entire CD in the store so they aren't affecting CD sales by pirating but they are LIKELY someone who would shell out a buck for their favorite single, but since they've already figured out how to Torrent for free, why pay?

[General Zod]

This is where I think the RIAA really fucked up. They drug their feet when it came to moving their market online. But since it was going there with or without them it allowed this culture of piracy to prevail. People who under normal circumstances wouldn't spend the better part of their day infringing on IP rights found themselves downloading Gigs upon gigs of music simply because it was easy and not readily available online legally. It became so common practice that when it came to light that it's ILLEGAL, people were like "WTF?" Had the industry jumped on online sharing and even worked to facilitate the networks, i think the piracy culture wouldn't have been as prevalent.

Ohai thar betamax lawsuit. The record industries are terrified of anything that might make them change their business model.

I'm going to assume you mean the industries past attempts at crushing technology that pose risks to copying their material. ie VHS, TAPES, CD-R. The problem is they were attempting to stop the technologies because going after the people USING them to actually bootleg and pirate was near impossible. Despite their crazy antics...at least these latest cases are pointed at the actual culprits rather than blaming the technology for having 'potential' dubious uses. Surprisingly they were actually successful at going after Napster....So in effect doing the same thing actually paid off.

No. I mean their tactic of constantly filing civil suits against hundreds if not thousands of people over infringement whether it's real or not.

Considering how quickly their market has changed and how much the profits have dropped I don't think all the data is in. No doubt with downloading being cheaper and easier than going to the store, CD sales were guaranteed to dry up. And with songs available individually it's no surprise that entire albums aren't being bought because you're more likely to just buy a few of your favorite songs from each album. A music downloader MAY NOT be someone who would have bought an entire CD in the store so they aren't affecting CD sales by pirating but they are LIKELY someone who would shell out a buck for their favorite single, but since they've already figured out how to Torrent for free, why pay?

I get the feeling it's not torrents fault that CDs are declining in popularity. The study goes on to say that torrents are supposedly offsetting sales, but the idea that a torrent downloaded equals a lost sale is a false assumption.

The music industry has transformed its business models, offering consumers an increasing range of new services with leading technology partners. Yet generating value in an environment where 95 per cent of music downloads are illegal and unpaid for is still the biggest challenge for music companies and their commercial partners.

The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined.

At the same time, a new generation of music subscription services, social networking sites and new licensing channels is emerging. These were led in 2008 by services like Nokia Comes With Music, MySpace Music and a raft of partnerships with Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as TDC in Denmark, Neuf Cegetel in France, TeliaSonera in Sweden and BSkyB in the UK.

[jcow79]

Ohai thar betamax lawsuit. The record industries are terrified of anything that might make them change their business model.

We agree here. Going after the technologies involved is stupid. I didn't agree with them going after Napster either. But sadly that one actually paid off for them.

No. I mean their tactic of constantly filing civil suits against hundreds if not thousands of people over infringement whether it's real or not.

I get the feeling it's not torrents fault that CDs are declining in popularity. The study goes on to say that torrents are supposedly offsetting sales, but the idea that a torrent downloaded equals a lost sale is a false assumption.

CD'S are not declining because of piracy. But online sales are likely affected.

This from your source

The music industry has transformed its business models, offering consumers an increasing range of new services with leading technology partners. Yet generating value in an environment where 95 per cent of music downloads are illegal and unpaid for is still the biggest challenge for music companies and their commercial partners.

AND

Tackling the problem of digital commerce in the era of "free"

Despite these changes, the Report highlights the critical problem of online piracy, and in particular the impact it is having on the local music sector in markets such as France and Spain. In France in the first half of 2008, album releases by new artists fell by 16 per cent and local repertoire accounted for 10 per cent of albums, compared to 15 per cent in the first half of 2005. In Spain, just one new local artist featured in the Top 50 albums from January to November 2008 - compared to 10 in 2003.

95% of downloaded music is done illegally. That's entirely too large of a margin to say piracy is not having an effect. Making music easily available online is OF COURSE going to increase your revenues. It's the reason the internet has had such a dramatic effect on all industries. We're not talking about the money they ARE making but the money they SHOULD be making. I have no doubt online purchases increasing each year is mostly attributed to companies like Apple and Amazon making sites that are easy to use and offering music at reasonable prices. But you can't discount revenues being denied the industry by 95% piracy rate...presuming those figures are accurate. I didn't realize the discrepancy was THAT profound.

[General Zod]

95% of downloaded music is done illegally. That's entirely too large of a margin to say piracy is not having an effect. Making music easily available online is OF COURSE going to increase your revenues. It's the reason the internet has had such a dramatic effect on all industries. We're not talking about the money they ARE making but the money they SHOULD be making. I have no doubt online purchases increasing each year is mostly attributed to companies like Apple and Amazon making sites that are easy to use and offering music at reasonable prices. But you can't discount revenues being denied the industry by 95% piracy rate...presuming those figures are accurate. I didn't realize the discrepancy was THAT profound.

Debatable.

The report, Piracy on the High Cs, was compiled by University of Pennsylvania professors Rafael Rob and Joel Waldfogel.
It asked the students about the albums they bought and those they downloaded without paying.
The students obtained 1,209 albums when downloading was available.
They purchased 617, while a further 592 were downloaded.
But if downloading was not available, the 617 albums would still be purchased, along with a further 154 which would have been downloaded.

[jcow79]

url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3995885.stm]Debatable[/url].

Did you read the whole article?

Music piracy 'does hit CD sales'
Compact discs
The students' spending habits fell when they could download albums
Record sales in the US have fallen because of people using the internet to download albums, a study suggests.

The report, for the country's National Bureau of Economic Research, studied the habits of 412 students.

It said the US music industry lost one fifth of a sale for each album downloaded from the internet.

The study contradicts a previous report, conducted in 2002, which said swapping songs online had no negative effect on music sales.

That report, by Harvard and North Carolina universities, said high levels of file-swapping had an effect that was "indistinguishable from zero".

Other research quoted by the IFPI global music industry body has estimated some 15% of users who download music illegally go on to spend more on music.

But the IFPI added that for every one person who uses file-sharing networks to sample music, a further two will cut back on their purchasing, or stop buying music altogether.

Downloaded albums

The report, Piracy on the High Cs, was compiled by University of Pennsylvania professors Rafael Rob and Joel Waldfogel.

Anthony Kiedis
The Red Hot Chili Peppers' albums were highly valued by the students
It asked the students about the albums they bought and those they downloaded without paying.

The students obtained 1,209 albums when downloading was available.

They purchased 617, while a further 592 were downloaded.

But if downloading was not available, the 617 albums would still be purchased, along with a further 154 which would have been downloaded.

It also said each student's spending on music declined from $126 to $100 when downloading was taken into account.

The report asked the students to put a value on the music they had bought or downloaded over time.

Nearly a third of the sample who had albums by the Red Hot Chili Peppers said it grew more valuable to them as time went on.

But over 80% of Britney Spears album owners said they had grown tired of her records.

Albums bought legitimately were valued more than downloaded music, the study said.

[/quote][/quote]

It's hard to determine if they're comparing CD sales vs illegal downloading or all music sales vs illegal downloading but either way it's pretty damning.

[General Zod]

It's hard to determine if they're comparing CD sales vs illegal downloading or all music sales vs illegal downloading but either way it's pretty damning.

The only thing that it tells us is that they bought more than half the records than were downloaded illegally. How do you think this would compare to people who just listen to music over, say, the radio but never buy the albums they hear?

[jcow79]

The only thing that it tells us is that they bought more than half the records than were downloaded illegally. How do you think this would compare to people who just listen to music over, say, the radio but never buy the albums they hear?

I got from it that people only are willing to pay for music they REALLY REALLY like as opposed to music they only like enough to steal.

[General Zod]

I got from it that people only are willing to pay for music they REALLY REALLY like as opposed to music they only like enough to steal.

As opposed to people who listen to it over the radio and don't pay anyway? I guess that means they stole it too?

[jcow79]

I got from it that people only are willing to pay for music they REALLY REALLY like as opposed to music they only like enough to steal.

As opposed to people who listen to it over the radio and don't pay anyway? I guess that means they stole it too?

Radio listeners are patronizing the radio station. The radio stations pay to broadcast the music and you get to listen to their adds. Don't pretend the idea of radios stations is new to you.

[General Zod]

Radio listeners are patronizing the radio station. The radio stations pay to broadcast the music and you get to listen to their adds. Don't pretend the idea of radios stations is new to you.

Way to miss the point there. If you're going to argue that piracy is bad because it causes the producers to lose sales, then that logic should extend to anything that causes potential sales loss. Guess what? If I decide not to buy an album based on what I hear over the radio? That meets this definition because the record company just lost a sale.